The Method...

Estudia: Hey Phi, nice to be here. Listen, what was the question?

Philo: We are going to discuss the method of cognition.

Estudia: Oh, that’s it! We discussed the central question, which was about knowledge and how we acquire it. We opted for objectivity but there must be a method of thinking that goes with objectivity. What is it?

Philo: Logic. Logic is the only way your consciousness, which is free to think or not, can conform to reality.

Estudia: It is the method of reason then, no?

Philo: Yes, an Aristotle discovered this long ago. Logic is the science of identifying entities without contradiction. You saw that knowledge is to understand or to grasp an entity. We must know something about the object and that means we must be able to identify it.

Estudia: On the perceptual level we realize that something exists. Doesn’t this give us knowledge about an object?

Philo: Yes, but we only know that there is something out there. To identify it, we must be able to define what is out there in explicit terms. That is the task of our conceptual thinking. No matter what you are thinking about it boils down to one question.

Estudia: What is it?

Philo: Exactly.

Estudia: Wait a minute now. “What is it?” is the question. How can that be?

Philo: Well, think about it. If you ask “Why” something occurred, you are asking, “What is it that caused that something to occur?” Or, if you ask, “How did that happen?” You really are asking, “What is it that happened and by what process?”

Estudia: How about if I ask “Where did that come from?”

Philo: Then you are asking, “What is the place that it came from?” You see, no matter what, existence has primacy; it comes first and consciousness can only identify that which is. Ayn Rand summed this up with her statement; “Existence is Identity: Consciousness is Identification.”

Estudia: Okay, I think I see that. If something is, it has a nature by the law of existence. And consciousness is something so it has a nature too, and its function is to discover the nature of things. “Existence is Identity: Consciousness is Identification.”

Philo: Yes, and the Identification must be non-contradictory. If something is A then it can’t be non-A. Aristotle stated this as a formal principle. It can’t be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. This is a corollary of the law of identity. This is the defining principle of reality-based thought. No matter how complex an issue it must be integrated into our knowledge without contradiction. We use logic to prove the truth of something. This means we reduce a proposition to axioms, and ultimately to sensory evidence. This is the only means that we have of verifying the truth between non-axiomatic propositions and reality itself.

Estudia: Isn’t a syllogism an example of logic? A syllogism like “All women are mortal. I am a woman. Therefore, I am mortal.”

Philo: That’s right. The premises are, “All women are mortal.” and “You are a woman.” The conclusion follows because if you deny that “You are mortal” then you would contradict the premises.

Estudia: To deny the conclusion, I’d be saying, “All women are mortal but here’s one that is not.

Philo: That is the soul of every process of logic. You observe the facts and use them as premises, then you apply the law of contradictions to draw a proper conclusion. There is an art to the science of logic.

Estudia: So logic is “the art of non-contradictory identification.”

Philo: Exactly, but you must remember that logic is the means of objectivity. So, a logical conclusion has to be derived from reality. You must know something before you can begin using logic. There has to be some knowledge of reality that comes before you can even make a premise. You must always check your premises carefully. If you make up premises arbitrarily, like “Santa Claus wears a red hat, red hats are real, therefore Santa Claus is real,” you are dropping any objectivity. To prove something you must establish the truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, and really, to the evidence of your senses. Any non-axiomatic proposition’s relationship to reality must be “proved” in this manner.

Estudia: I can see that we take the data of our senses and organize it to build concepts. We have to build on our earliest integrations to form higher concepts. This isn’t automatic so we need a method. I can see that logic would give us a method to move from step to step. Logic depends on how our consciousness works and it depends on the facts of reality.

Philo: And this brings us to the topics of context and hierarchy, both of which are absolutely necessary if you want to understand logic and objectivity.